SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Chavis suspended 80 games for banned substance
|
Post by soxfando on Apr 9, 2018 13:43:16 GMT -5
Perfect. There is no legitimate excuse short of an Act of God for testing positive. The approved supplements are identified. The onus is on the player. The days of "I didn't know", "I have no idea how it happened" or "I was just trying to recover faster and my friend 'Joe' swore by this stuff from the tropical canopy" are over. I am glad the testing is becoming more sophisticated and more positives registered. The penalties are greater too. Let the players make their mark legitimately. But even then what happens when an approved supplement is contaminated? Certification programs are never 100%
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Apr 9, 2018 13:43:20 GMT -5
i guess i am most surprised by the skeptical reaction people have about the
a) possibility of players will actually cheat b) potential value in cheating
is the debate about whether this stuff works ? isnt anybody the least bit concerned whether his breakout 2017 season wasnt aided somewhat? It just seems strange.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Apr 9, 2018 13:47:46 GMT -5
But it's very possible that supplement he's been taking for years without issue is now made with Turinabol, because there's nothing saying they can't do so. That's a legitimate excuse. That doesn't mean it absolves him from wrongdoing and that he shouldn't serve his suspension and accept responsibility, but it's also fair to him to wonder what the hell happened and to be upset about it. James sorry I was responding to Chris's post but you beat me in. I like the minor league rules. 'Here are the approved supplements...You are in charge of your body, what goes into it and any consequences from your actions'. If there was a supplement certified in prior years and turbinol was later added but not labeled and it hadn't come up for re-certification, that would be an excuse. I don't know how often the certification process takes place, but maybe it should be done annually.
|
|
|
Post by soxfando on Apr 9, 2018 13:56:45 GMT -5
i guess i am most surprised by the skeptical reaction people have about the a) possibility of players will actually cheat b) potential value in cheating is the debate about whether this stuff works ? isnt anybody the least bit concerned whether his breakout 2017 season wasnt aided somewhat? It just seems strange. The general withholding of information and lack of any meaningful investigation adds to the skepticism. Add to that professional athletes generally take a lot of sketchy milk shake supplements for "nutrition" and there's plenty of reasonable doubt as to actual intent.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 9, 2018 14:07:04 GMT -5
The fact they ban these substances is a joke.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Apr 9, 2018 14:28:02 GMT -5
Reading his explanation is why I dont use Twitter.
Twitter is a cesspool of better-than-tbou keyboard warriors who have already founs him guilty.
Sure his average and power went up last year. But he was a first-round pick, and had potential and future Improvement written all over his Prospect description. This isn't like Canelo Alvarez obviously using steroids, I feel like there's a chance Chavis may be telling the truth. Maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 9, 2018 15:08:36 GMT -5
Yeah, consider that GNC's supplements aren't on there (that I saw - I looked quickly). That or EAS (which is on the list) are like the starter level supplements for anyone looking to supplement their training. If you're plugging along, passing tests, there's no reason to think that you're suddenly going to fail one if you keep taking the same stuff. And that's worth saying here - Chavis has probably been tested dozens of times since signing. As some have mentioned, on the one hand, there is a documented problem staying healthy that would lend itself to a conscious decision to start using a banned performance enhancer. On the other, we don't know what counsel he was getting on his supplements - perhaps he trained somewhere and got bad advice on a supplement that "all of our other clients have taken and none have tested positive" or something. It's already well established that it's not like he had to be taking this through a syringe or something, and that it at least was in at least one over-the-counter product as of 2016. The point is, we just don't know the truth here. Everyone will think what they want to think. I hold the position that it's entirely possible he had no idea he was taking this particular substance, but that we don't know and never will know if he did. Separately, WEEI talked to Colabello about the Chavis suspension: www.weei.com/blogs/rob-bradford/chris-colabello-i-believe-michael-chavis-did-no-wrong
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 9, 2018 15:26:33 GMT -5
i guess i am most surprised by the skeptical reaction people have about the a) possibility of players will actually cheat b) potential value in cheating is the debate about whether this stuff works ? isnt anybody the least bit concerned whether his breakout 2017 season wasnt aided somewhat? It just seems strange. He's always had power. His problem was that he was trying to hit two home runs each swing. It was one of the more easy to diagnose issues I've ever seen as a non-scout evaluating players. Ian and I sat on a Drive series the year they were loaded, and Chavis had the most impressive BP, but wasn't getting in-game results. Then he swung out of his shoes at every pitch trying to yank it over the faux-monster at Fluor Field. There really is no correlation between the problems that he fixed last year and the use of performance enhancers. Health has been an issue since he signed, but not really in a "wear down over the course of the season" way that you'd turn to a performance enhancer for. In 2016 he had one finger injury and sat for 6 weeks or whatever it was, then came back and broke his finger and didn't tell anyone. Last year he had an arm issue, but it was immediately at the start of the year, so again, I'm not sure that's the kind of thing you'd turn to PEDs for, although I could certainly be wrong. And given the timing here, I assume his positive test predated the oblique issue.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 9, 2018 16:30:18 GMT -5
The point is, we just don't know the truth here. Everyone will think what they want to think. I hold the position that it's entirely possible he had no idea he was taking this particular substance, but that we don't know and never will know if he did. Yeah, and I just don't see the point in assuming the worst just so you can condemn the guy. It's a first offense, give him the benefit of the doubt. It absolutely could have been an innocent mistake. It also could have been a moment of weakness/temptation from a player struggling with a tough injury (remember how he hid that finger injury), in which case... that's not great, but it's understandable and if he's learned his lesson, I'm not going to hold it against him. Or, he's just an unrepentant cheater, which if true will eventually become apparent, and I will hold it against him if it does. But for right now, I'm just hoping he gets back on track and puts this behind him.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 9, 2018 19:59:56 GMT -5
Yeah, consider that GNC's supplements aren't on there (that I saw - I looked quickly). That or EAS (which is on the list) are like the starter level supplements for anyone looking to supplement their training. If you're plugging along, passing tests, there's no reason to think that you're suddenly going to fail one if you keep taking the same stuff. And that's worth saying here - Chavis has probably been tested dozens of times since signing. As some have mentioned, on the one hand, there is a documented problem staying healthy that would lend itself to a conscious decision to start using a banned performance enhancer. On the other, we don't know what counsel he was getting on his supplements - perhaps he trained somewhere and got bad advice on a supplement that "all of our other clients have taken and none have tested positive" or something. It's already well established that it's not like he had to be taking this through a syringe or something, and that it at least was in at least one over-the-counter product as of 2016. The point is, we just don't know the truth here. Everyone will think what they want to think. I hold the position that it's entirely possible he had no idea he was taking this particular substance, but that we don't know and never will know if he did. Separately, WEEI talked to Colabello about the Chavis suspension: www.weei.com/blogs/rob-bradford/chris-colabello-i-believe-michael-chavis-did-no-wrongAnd if he was taking some state of the art something something then my eyebrows would be raised. But he took 1970's East Germany magic blue pill steroids. It's really hard for me to believe that anyone does that intentionally in 2018 in any sport where they test. That's like bringing your pine tar out the mound in a big container that says PINE TAR.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Apr 9, 2018 21:17:11 GMT -5
Again.....This is not 1995. Nobody can claim naivete or wear blinders. The current, negotiated rules are designed to clean up the game whether all approve or not. The owners and the players association are one here. With certified supplements, the player is at fault for going beyond those parameters. No ifs or buts.
We all have a bias toward protecting our players that we would not have for those of other teams. We conjure possible reasons and excuses that we would debunk if a Yankee player were fingered by example. Getting that bias muted is hard.
I don't put much stock in the remotest possibility that a player's drink was spiked or duende sprinkled on his pancakes, excuse him taking a banned substance because he wanted to heal faster ('cause who wouldn't), or to enhance his abilities to make the majors where the pay is better ('cause who wouldn't). I think that it is extremely unlikely that a once certified supplement would be contaminated. (Save a sample).The idea that a 1970s PE wouldn't be intentionally used today as flashing red as if were primitive, is also unlikely. It might be more likely where more advanced designer drugs might be the focus or it might 'clear' more quickly. Who knows. Someone here posted a report recently that showed more PE positives were being recorded at the start of the season because players juice up in the off season expecting metabolites to clear by the time of testing. New, much more sophisticated testing is catching those players. Good for the game.
As far as saying "We will never know" if a PE was intentionally ingested...sure....but that could be said for any failed test taker who espouses innocence. Baseball has taken the tack of Res Ipsa Loquitur.
|
|
|
Post by soxfando on Apr 9, 2018 22:00:22 GMT -5
Again.....This is not 1995. Nobody can claim naivete or wear blinders. The current, negotiated rules are designed to clean up the game whether all approve or not. The owners and the players association are one here. With certified supplements, the player is at fault for going beyond those parameters. No ifs or buts. We all have a bias toward protecting our players that we would not have for those of other teams. We conjure possible reasons and excuses that we would debunk if a Yankee player were fingered by example. Getting that bias muted is hard. I don't put much stock in the remotest possibility that a player's drink was spiked or duende sprinkled on his pancakes, excuse him taking a banned substance because he wanted to heal faster ('cause who wouldn't), or to enhance his abilities to make the majors where the pay is better ('cause who wouldn't). I think that it is extremely unlikely that a once certified supplement would be contaminated. (Save a sample).The idea that a 1970s PE wouldn't be intentionally used today as flashing red as if were primitive, is also unlikely. It might be more likely where more advanced designer drugs might be the focus or it might 'clear' more quickly. Who knows. Someone here posted a report recently that showed more PE positives were being recorded at the start of the season because players juice up in the off season expecting metabolites to clear by the time of testing. New, much more sophisticated testing is catching those players. Good for the game. As far as saying "We will never know" if a PE was intentionally ingested...sure....but that could be said for any failed test taker who espouses innocence. Baseball has taken the tack of Res Ipsa Loquitur. Synthetic steroids banned by MLB are used in beef production in the US. MLB needs a hamburger certification program too.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 10, 2018 4:08:21 GMT -5
Simple solution, let players register the supplements that they are taking. If said supplement then causes a failed test because they changed ingredients then you can simply test that supplement to see if true. Player can then change to a different supplement and register the new one and not be suspended. It really shouldn’t be difficult.
And/or drastically reduce these innocuous substances that are on the list.
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Jun 21, 2018 7:54:10 GMT -5
www.pressherald.com/2018/06/20/red-sox-farm-report-pawtucket-pitchers-making-progress/Chavis is eligible to come back from his suspension on July 1st. 10 games left of his suspension. The article has the smallest bit of speculation about where he’ll end up. I’d say he heads to Portland first, but if he’s been impressing down in Fort Myers then there’s the slimmest chance he is assigned to Pawtucket. But like I said, probably Portland in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by huskies15 on Jun 21, 2018 8:46:41 GMT -5
I'd love to know if Chavis could play 2B passably
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 21, 2018 9:59:47 GMT -5
I'd love to know if Chavis could play 2B passably I guess if your definition of passable is “well, Dan Uggla was a second baseman and his teams didn’t lose every game”, it’s possible.
|
|
|
Post by huskies15 on Jun 21, 2018 10:28:26 GMT -5
LOL I guess Nunez has severely lowered my bar for competency there
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 21, 2018 11:08:47 GMT -5
My guess is that given they moved Chavis to 1B last year in order to get him some more versatility, rather than 2B, that 2B is out of the question for them. If they thought he could handle 2B, they could've tried him there at the end of last year and perhaps not given Nunez 2 years. That said, they did give Moreland 2 years as well, so I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 21, 2018 14:52:18 GMT -5
My guess is that given they moved Chavis to 1B last year in order to get him some more versatility, rather than 2B, that 2B is out of the question for them. If they thought he could handle 2B, they could've tried him there at the end of last year and perhaps not given Nunez 2 years. That said, they did give Moreland 2 years as well, so I could be wrong. Nunez has a 2 million buyout so it was effectively a one year 6m deal but they spread out the money for tax purposes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2018 15:05:43 GMT -5
I see Chavis DHing down the stretch. We have a jam at 3B, and if JD is past his prime when he hits FA or if the Red Sox can't resign him, I could see Chavis taking his spot.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 21, 2018 15:06:55 GMT -5
I'm really praying that Chavis just picks right back up and starts raking immediately. I imagine he'll go to Portland.
|
|
|
Post by coachmac on Jun 21, 2018 15:53:38 GMT -5
My guess is that given they moved Chavis to 1B last year in order to get him some more versatility, rather than 2B, that 2B is out of the question for them. If they thought he could handle 2B, they could've tried him there at the end of last year and perhaps not given Nunez 2 years. That said, they did give Moreland 2 years as well, so I could be wrong. Nunez has a 2 million buyout so it was effectively a one year 6m deal but they spread out the money for tax purposes While I haven't found confirmation, I believe the 2d year option belongs to the player.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 21, 2018 16:02:31 GMT -5
Nunez has a 2 million buyout so it was effectively a one year 6m deal but they spread out the money for tax purposes While I haven't found confirmation, I believe the 2d year option belongs to the player. 1 year/$6M (2018), plus 2019 player option re-signed by Boston 2/18/18 18:$4M, 19:$4M player option ($2M buyout) 2019 option may increase $1M based on 2018 plate appearances may earn additional $1M annually in performance bonuses legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/boston-red-sox/The point that rjp was making, I think, is that Nunez would, in theory, pick the $2M buyout rather than the $4M for one year. The bar to get more than a $2M contract is not high. Consider that the corpse of Jose Reyes got 1 year, $2M from the Mets. That said... Nunez might actually be playing below that bar right now.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 21, 2018 16:38:17 GMT -5
While I haven't found confirmation, I believe the 2d year option belongs to the player. 1 year/$6M (2018), plus 2019 player option re-signed by Boston 2/18/18 18:$4M, 19:$4M player option ($2M buyout) 2019 option may increase $1M based on 2018 plate appearances may earn additional $1M annually in performance bonuses legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/boston-red-sox/The point that rjp was making, I think, is that Nunez would, in theory, pick the $2M buyout rather than the $4M for one year. The bar to get more than a $2M contract is not high. Consider that the corpse of Jose Reyes got 1 year, $2M from the Mets. That said... Nunez might actually be playing below that bar right now. I believe The Red Sox can buy him out when he exercises the option. Edit: Never mind it’s a backwards buyout.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 21, 2018 17:29:16 GMT -5
In that context "buyout" means "money player gets if he doesn't exercise the option". If it's a team option then it would be what you're thinking of.
|
|
|